Motorola Mobility LLC et al. v. Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.

IPR2025-00041

Google and Motorola settled their IPR against Multifold’s patent 9,058,153, leading the PTAB to terminate the proceeding and keep the settlement terms confidential.

Jurisdiction
US PTAB
Case Number
IPR2025-00041
Judge(s)
Kristen L. Droesch, Hyun J. Jung, Brian P. Murphy
Decision Date
18 October 2024

Detailed Summary

In IPR2025-00041 concerning U.S. Patent No. 9,058,153 B2, Google LLC and Motorola Mobility LLC jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review after reaching a settlement with patent owner Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd. The Board granted the motion, citing good cause under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a) and ordered the settlement agreements to be treated as confidential business information per 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c). No merits were decided, and the proceeding was closed without a final written decision.

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Motorola Mobility LLC et al. vs Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

patentIPR2024-01339

TikTok Inc. et al.vsNTECH Properties, Inc.

TikTok has filed an IPR petition challenging all 20 claims of NTECH's video‑recommendation patent, asserting that the invention is obvious over earlier systems such as Marcus156 and Harbick.

patentIPR2025-00828

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd.vsAdvanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC

Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC opposes Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co.'s request for a Director review of U.S. Patent 7,579,227, arguing the Board correctly exercised discretionary denial. The response highlights procedural deficiencies, meritless new‑facts claims, and unsupported national‑security arguments.

patentIPR2026-00154

Target CorporationvsHEADWATER RESEARCH LLC

The PTAB held that all of the challenged claims of Headwater’s ’541 patent are unpatentable, finding anticipation or obviousness over the Rao reference and, for many claims, additional references.

patentIPR2025-01439

Snap Inc. et al.vsNokia Technologies Oy

Snap Inc. and Hisense have filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate 19 claims of Nokia’s video‑coding patent, arguing obviousness over Karczewicz and the MPEG‑1/H.263 combination.

patentIPR2025-01283

Sandisk Technologies, Inc. et al.vsLongitude Flash Memory Solutions Ltd. et al.

SanDisk and Longitude Flash jointly moved to dismiss an IPR over U.S. Patent 9,929,240 covering NAND flash memory after settling their dispute. The Board has not yet instituted the review, and the parties seek termination under statutory settlement provisions.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Dealing with a patent challenge?

Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.

Talk to our patent team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call